Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« on: September 14, 2013, 04:45:02 PM »
so Ive been reading and have found that full range speakers could be the way to go for studio monitors because of the lack of a crossover point.  the phase problems between the tweeter and woofer at the crossover point is what causes problems during mixing and mastering because every speaker system has its own very different phase issues but eliminating them in a studio monitor would remove  the phase problems!!  I know Daniel Lanois  uses full range speakers to mix and i like his stuff.. just looking for thoughts.
-Dan


mattiasNYC

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2013, 06:02:54 PM »
You could consider coaxial 2-way systems.

JohnRoberts

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2013, 07:37:40 PM »
Most serious monitor speakers are two way or three way because it is difficult to to make decent SPL at LF and HF with one same size speaker.

Many studios also use a small pair of auratones full-range single driver speakers, mainly to check how mix sounds on small speakers.

There have been some very popular 2 way monitors (like NS-10), while 3 ways generally push the crossover points away from the critical vocal mid-range region.

 For what it worth you want to hear how the mix sounds on real speakers like the end users will use too. A too-good sounding monitor speaker means the mix will always sound worse on lesser speakers.

Monitor speakers serve dual roles. One is being very revealing of any flaws in the sound while tracking. For mix down they need to represent what joe public will listen on. Not unusual to have multiple different monitor speakers.

JR

PS: The only single driver full range speaker that made decent SPL was the old Ohm Hifi speakers using a Walsh driver (called bending wave driver on wiki?).  Coaxial drivers are actually 2-way speakers while making the drivers share the same apparent point of origin helps some off axis response issues like lobing.
Don't only half-ass tune your drums. Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.

tv

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2013, 05:36:14 AM »
...
while 3 ways generally push the crossover points away from the critical
...
perhaps one of the reasons NS-40 weren't as hugely popular as NS-10's
If you sprinkle when you tinkle, please be neat and wipe the seat.

JohnRoberts

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2013, 11:06:29 AM »
...
while 3 ways generally push the crossover points away from the critical
...
perhaps one of the reasons NS-40 weren't as hugely popular as NS-10's
This is just my personal conjecture but monitor speakers often become popular due to here-say, when record producers report success mixing on XYZ speaker.  The NS-10 in my judgement was not a very good sounding speaker by itself, but apparently a mix that is tweaked to sound better on it, sounds great on normal speakers. Kind of like they were successful precisely because they made the mix sound worse.   :o

Like i said there are multiple different valid functions for monitor speakers.

Note: using the same monitor speakers as your idol will not necessarily lead you to make the same mixing decisions but does offer a clue to his methodology.  When I was voicing the EQ in the AMR Production series console we brought in Daniel Lanois to consult on the EQ... I was already pretty happy with the EQ but Hartley wanted to bring in a big name to kick the tires. Daniel is/was also a bass guitar player and talked with Hartley about things like "balls"(?), which apparently means something to bass players.  Guessing it referred to a bass frequency range, I extended the low-mid sweep range down an octave lower and sent him an input strip to check out in his personal studio... he loved it (thankfully) so we were OK. He apparently communicates better with the talent he produces, and he and Hartley were having a good conversation. I was the odd man out.  ;D  I guess too many years on the test bench made me more objective about describing sound characteristics.  8) I gave him better access to turn up the "balls" and he blessed it.

JR
Don't only half-ass tune your drums. Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.

dandeurloo

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2013, 08:34:52 PM »
If I build a new space I will probably get full range speakers.  My mastering guys all hear things on theirs that I never hear.  It would be nice to hear that stuff while tracking and mixing.  But there are a number of different options out there.  Lots of good options.
PROFESSIONAL CHASSIS AND FRONT PANELS FOR DIY PROJECTS: WWW.COLLECTIVECASES.COM

Dan Deurloo
www.collectivecases.com
www.risendrums.com

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2013, 10:12:50 PM »
Saying you think Full range speakers are better than 2-way designs is like saying ... 4 door cars are better than 2 door cars.

If you want to hear what Daniel hears, you'd better buy his EXACT speakers .. or steal his.  Different speakers sound different.  Full range speakers are more inconsistent than most modern 2-way designs so expect yours to sound different  from his even if its the same brand and model.

mattamatta

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2013, 10:38:10 PM »
If you want to hear what Daniel hears, you'd better buy his EXACT speakers .. or steal his. 

Don't forget to listen in his room and listening position as well.

joaquins

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2013, 10:49:48 PM »
Saying you think Full range speakers are better than 2-way designs is like saying ... 4 door cars are better than 2 door cars.

If you want to hear what Daniel hears, you'd better buy his EXACT speakers .. or steal his.  Different speakers sound different.  Full range speakers are more inconsistent than most modern 2-way designs so expect yours to sound different  from his even if its the same brand and model.

There is no better example, who can ever think in making a race car with a 4 doors one, in this case 2 doors is better, when you have a family with 2 kids, anybody will think in a 2 doors car over a 4 one. The same here, the number of ways may depend on the use... you will need a sub to hear 35Hz anything and it's really usefull when mixing and I don't know a single speaker capable of going 35Hz and 20kHz in the same diaphragm... It's also true than intermodulation between 2 voice coilse may harm audio integrity and there is when a full range came to place.

The idea is have a couple of monitors options and trust than no all of them will hide the same things, but all of them will be hiding something, I use to hear with my headphones and the monitor I have near, when are mine much better, but still with mines near I use my HP. I'd like to have some tiny ones (like auratone) and some big one like ATC 150 but I can't, plus some mid point as I have, I'm more close to build a pair of small ones than buy a some nice big ones... but still a couple of options is nice to have but you have to know how to use them.. IMHO, always in monitor speaking, better a bad known one than a nice unknown.

JS
If I don't know how it works, I prefer don't turn it on.

living sounds

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2013, 05:11:51 AM »
The NS10 also has better time domain response than most speakers.

SOS has a good article:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/yamahans10.htm


JohnRoberts

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2013, 10:16:31 AM »
 ;D ;D
Measuring near field monitors that are typically perched on the meter bridge of a console generating major early boundary reflections  in an anechoic chamber is not apples to apples.

One important data point left out of that article is that a string of early adopters mixed hits on the NS-10 (sorry I do not have a discology)... Kind of like the ball player who doesn't want to change his socks when on a hitting streak, mix engineers don't want to change their monitors when mixing hits and success breeds copying.

JR
Don't only half-ass tune your drums. Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.

usekgb

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2013, 11:11:21 AM »
The NS10 is really not a good sounding speaker.  The idea is, if you can get your mix to sound good on these things, it will sound good anywhere.  For modern music, with extended lows and highs, and much reduced dynamic range, I'm not really sure if this is the case anymore.

As for full rangers, they can sound incredible, but usually have a limited frequency response and lower power handling.  You get none of the phase response or lobbing issues that you get with multi-driver enclosures, but you wind up sacrificing extended low and high frequency response. 

Really, the best solution, is to audition your mix on as many sets of speakers you can .  Don't just rely on your favorites.  For example, if you're mixing electronic or hip hop, NS10's will tell you nothing about what is going on in the sub-bass region.
Zach Griffen Audio
EvilTone

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2013, 11:45:35 AM »
thanks for all the replies.  The reason i ask is because I will soon be living in an apartment so the low volume of full ranges isn't an issue.  Im just looking for accurate computer speakers really.

ruairioflaherty

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2013, 01:23:36 PM »
Really, the best solution, is to audition your mix on as many sets of speakers you can .

I don't have time to write a proper response now but I disagree with this.  Lots of half truths from lots of speakers is not a good way to get work done confidently and quickly.  Find one set of speakers that you trust and learn how they translate to the real world.



Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2013, 04:57:29 PM »
As for full rangers, they can sound incredible, but usually have a limited frequency response and lower power handling.  You get none of the phase response or lobbing issues that you get with multi-driver enclosures, but you wind up sacrificing extended low and high frequency response. 
Actually superb phase response and no lobing on full-range speakers is a myth.

Full range speakers are probably the most common example of non-minimum phase speaker units. (Practically all other modern drive units are minimum phase .. phase as God intended.  Multi-way speakers are non-minimum phase cos their xovers

You might like to get a copy of Beranek or Olson from a Uni library to see the lobing you get with full range units.

But as I said earlier, the biggest problem with full-range units for monitoring is that they are inconsistent from sample to sample.

That's not to say some full-range units can't sound 'nice'.

living sounds

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2013, 05:30:56 AM »
It's a bad idea to use NS10s as your only monitoring system due to the limitations, but I find them extremely usefull in combination with a 3-way system, an Auratone and headphones. And even with modern bass-heavy music the bulk of information is located in the midrange.

JohnRoberts

Re: Monitors-Full range Vs. Two way design
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2013, 09:46:59 AM »
It's a bad idea to use NS10s as your only monitoring system due to the limitations, but I find them extremely usefull in combination with a 3-way system, an Auratone and headphones. And even with modern bass-heavy music the bulk of information is located in the midrange.

+1 while this may not help the OP much.

A few decades ago I was involved in a program to design and market studio monitor speakers (AMR). The initial market research was rather inconclusive with a handful of popular monitors that all sounded different than each other.  We finally decided to add a switch to our monitors that altered the voicing of the monitors for two different modes of operation.

While tracking, you want a very revealing loudspeaker so you can hear distortion and every nuance of vocals or instruments while capturing the individual performances.  Later for mix down you want a loudspeaker voiced to be more representative of the final customer's playback system.

In my judgement the NS-10 was better at revealing distortion or other issues due to a slightly hotter upper midrange, than for being representative for final mixdown, but I try not to argue with success, and it is an iconic monitor speaker. 

YMMV

JR

PS: Speakers and microphones are two of the most variable components you will deal with in a recording environment. It is useful to understand the quirks of all your tools.
Don't only half-ass tune your drums. Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.